Sorry for the intrusion, does anyone know the outcome of the Susan Kihika case? I see the women seen as a threat by men are facing hard time ie Waiguru, Kihika and Ndeti

[quote=hardwood][quote=kayhara]Sorry for the intrusion, does anyone know the outcome of the Susan Kihika case? I see the women seen as a threat by men are facing hard time ie Waiguru, Kihika and Ndeti[/quote]

Justice Odinga ruled that she (Kihika) can vie.[/quote]

[quote=Ngalaka]In his ruling the Judge offered that there are grounds enough to bar Wavinya from running, but he chose not to venture there, restricting himself to the grounds which IEBC had cited in nullifying her candidature.
Link
[quote]“The court has found that other issues raised as the basis for justification of the committee’s verdict were not grounds upon which IEBC made its decision,” he said.
“It may well be that had the committee based its decision on the issues raised before me, a different outcome might have been reached.”
[/quote]
That means in a substantive hearing of the issues, ably prosecuted, Wavinya is likely to be barred.
We know not if the court of appeal will also restrict itself as Judge Odunga did, or it will opt to interrogate the real issues in order to mete out justice substantively as opposed to technical circumventions, which are unduly preferred and pursued more than anything else by litigants who have something to hide.
[/quote]
he seems to be saying this:

1. committee barred wavinya;
2. wavinya appealed to the court against the decision of the committee to bar her;
3. when the matter was before the judge new issues were raised on why wavinya should be barred;
4. these issues were new in that they were not the basis (and were probably not raised before the committee) of the committee's decision;
5. the matter before the court and judge was not the eligibility of wavinya to participate in the elections but whether the committee's decision was legal and should stand;
6. due to the foregoing it was not up to the court/judge to entertain new grounds on her eligibility or otherwise but it/he had to restrict itself to the matter before it/him - the decision of the committee.

any appeal will most likely agree with the judge.

note - the different outcome statement by the judge doesn't mean much. courts usually use them merely to stress the point that they have not considered such issues in their decisions.

[quote=mkenyan][quote=Ngalaka]In his ruling the Judge offered that there are grounds enough to bar Wavinya from running, but he chose not to venture there, restricting himself to the grounds which IEBC had cited in nullifying her candidature.
Link
[quote]“The court has found that other issues raised as the basis for justification of the committee’s verdict were not grounds upon which IEBC made its decision,” he said.
“It may well be that had the committee based its decision on the issues raised before me, a different outcome might have been reached.”
[/quote]
That means in a substantive hearing of the issues, ably prosecuted, Wavinya is likely to be barred.
We know not if the court of appeal will also restrict itself as Judge Odunga did, or it will opt to interrogate the real issues in order to mete out justice substantively as opposed to technical circumventions, which are unduly preferred and pursued more than anything else by litigants who have something to hide.
[/quote]
he seems to be saying this:

1. committee barred wavinya;
2. wavinya appealed to the court against the decision of the committee to bar her;
3. when the matter was before the judge new issues were raised on why wavinya should be barred;
4. these issues were new in that they were not the basis (and were probably not raised before the committee) of the committee's decision;
5. the matter before the court and judge was not the eligibility of wavinya to participate in the elections but whether the committee's decision was legal and should stand;
6. due to the foregoing it was not up to the court/judge to entertain new grounds on her eligibility or otherwise but it/he had to restrict itself to the matter before it/him - the decision of the committee.

any appeal will most likely agree with the judge.

note - the different outcome statement by the judge doesn't mean much. courts usually use them merely to stress the point that they have not considered such issues in their decisions.[/quote]
You and I are basically saying the same thing.
However as concerns the said new issues, one can never tell for sure how another court will consider/treat them.
A conservative judge would rule the way Odunga did, and that's perfectly lawful, but a liberal judge may want to get to the real issues sorrounding the matter in order to dispense real justice.

Both Judges will be within their legal gamut.

While at it, consider that the party going to court of appeal is the MCA guy with Muthama in the shadows:-d
How the appellant will argue his case may also be key!

[quote=Ngalaka][quote=mkenyan][quote=Ngalaka]In his ruling the Judge offered that there are grounds enough to bar Wavinya from running, but he chose not to venture there, restricting himself to the grounds which IEBC had cited in nullifying her candidature.
Link
[quote]“The court has found that other issues raised as the basis for justification of the committee’s verdict were not grounds upon which IEBC made its decision,” he said.
“It may well be that had the committee based its decision on the issues raised before me, a different outcome might have been reached.”
[/quote]
That means in a substantive hearing of the issues, ably prosecuted, Wavinya is likely to be barred.
We know not if the court of appeal will also restrict itself as Judge Odunga did, or it will opt to interrogate the real issues in order to mete out justice substantively as opposed to technical circumventions, which are unduly preferred and pursued more than anything else by litigants who have something to hide.
[/quote]
he seems to be saying this:

1. committee barred wavinya;
2. wavinya appealed to the court against the decision of the committee to bar her;
3. when the matter was before the judge new issues were raised on why wavinya should be barred;
4. these issues were new in that they were not the basis (and were probably not raised before the committee) of the committee's decision;
5. the matter before the court and judge was not the eligibility of wavinya to participate in the elections but whether the committee's decision was legal and should stand;
6. due to the foregoing it was not up to the court/judge to entertain new grounds on her eligibility or otherwise but it/he had to restrict itself to the matter before it/him - the decision of the committee.

any appeal will most likely agree with the judge.

note - the different outcome statement by the judge doesn't mean much. courts usually use them merely to stress the point that they have not considered such issues in their decisions.[/quote]
You and I are basically saying the same thing.
However as concerns the said new issues, one can never tell for sure how another court will consider/treat them.
A conservative judge would rule the way Odunga did, and that's perfectly lawful, but a liberal judge may want to get to the real issues sorrounding the matter in order to dispense real justice.

Both Judges will be within their legal gamut.

While at it, consider that the party going to court of appeal is the MCA guy with Muthama in the shadows:-d
How the appellant will argue his case may also be key![/quote]
i agree. and i imagine that the mca (or proxy) is best forgetting the appeal and filing a petition before the high court raising all those issues that were not dealt with by the judge. based on what was shared by murchr earlier in this thread (those may probably have been the 'new' issues), there are lots of messy stuff in this matter to possibly lock her out.